[governance] Comments and Draft of HR caucus proposal to IGF

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 1 avr. 06 à 19:06, Milton Mueller a écrit :

>>>> Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> 03/31/06 4:05 AM >>>
>> I'm sorry to jump in the discussion so late
>
> Yes, this is sad, because your comments are worth paying attention  
> to and I had hoped to stimulate just such a discussion on the issue  
> you raise below when proposing the FoE theme. Nothing happened.  
> Indeed, discussion of the themes has been cursory in general.

I do apologize. It's not that easy to have a full time job, and run  
(many) volunteer activities besides that.
Generally speaking, I agree with you that it's sad that there has  
been, all in all, very little discussion on the themes proposals. And  
this list has been the most active on the proposal side!

>> However, proposing this in the IGF framework will certainly open
>> the way to a definition of "ethical content", "acceptable by all  
>> in the
>> whole world" allowed on the Internet.
>
> I agree with you that that would be an undesirable outcome. But the  
> Forum would allow those of us who oppose that, including several  
> governments, to voice their views. Why not deal with this issue? It  
> is much safer in the Forum context than in others. And could it not  
> also put pressure on govts using censorship for purely political  
> purposes?

I'm not sure at all it would work. I'm not that optimist. I know  
people who normally are on the FoE defenders side, and who think it  
would be good to define some kind of 'general agreement' on 'limits'.  
I've provided the example of the Mahomet cartoons because it's  
becoming like a 'syndrom', you know... The issue that you proposed is  
dangerous because it is framed in terms of 'ethics'. People who want  
to limit FoE will jump on this: those who don't want to talk about  
rights talk about ethics, it's well known, and we keep facing this  
attitude. You cannot imagine how much it works, even with well  
intentionned people. It's the reason why it's better to frame it in  
terms of corporate social responsibility, for companies, rather than  
ethics. Obviously, when talking about companies, we cannot frame the  
issue in  terms of rights to be respected, because they're not binded  
by rights instruments: they're only binded by the national  
legislation under which they're established (and/or of the markets  
they want to enter).

> the more basic issue is: who is on the defensive and who is on the  
> offensive? It seems that international processes seem to be driven  
> entirely by people who have some kind of agenda for controlling or  
> restricting the internet in some way, for various reasons. Why can  
> there not be pressure in the other direction, a more positive  
> assertion of liberty of expression?

Because we're not going at all towards this. On the contrary, we're  
going backwards and it's a hard time just to get things  
_preserved_... And I'm saying that with more than 10 years of  
experience in this field, and presence in intergovernmental arenas.  
Even the most committed to HR and FoE, like the council of Europe.  
But people think and behave like crazy when we discuss Internet  
issue. For them, it's the devil...
Could you imagine that we're again witnessing now discussions that  
happened 10 years ago. Have a look at this to simply figure out the  
situation: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.5/coe

> Do you think real FoE can be preserved and protected by simply  
> keeping it off the agenda and refusing to talk about it? Won't it  
> be chipped away bit by bit using that tactic?

No, I don't think this at all, and this was not my point. Don't get  
it wrong: the issue is not to avoid or escape the debate on this. My  
point is simply that :
(1) for this particular proposal, the 'ethics' framing is wrong and  
dangerous, and
(2) for FoE in general: is not a governance issue, and it's a big  
mistake, I think, to discuss _rights_ in a governance arena. It's a  
good strategy however to take rights (specially when already defined  
in international instruments which are binding for governements) as a  
starting point/justification/perspective/argument to obtain what is  
seen as a political progress.

Best,
Meryem
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance